Activities of Alyn SMITH related to 2015/2065(INI)
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on unfair trading practices in the food supply chain
Amendments (8)
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recognises that CAP reform as a missed opportunity to introduced measures aimed at addressing the bargaining power gap between farmers and other stakeholders in the food supply chain; underlines that fundamental imbalances of bargaining power between farmers and suppliers on the one hand and manufacturers, processors and retailers on the other remain the root cause of unfair trading practices; notes the domination of the groceries market in Member States by a few major players, forcing farmers into a "price taking" squeeze where they sell at a loss, and limiting viable alternatives to unbalanced business relationships;
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Notes that the European Parliament has produced five resolutions on problems in the EU retail chain, including three specifically on imbalances and abuses within the food supply chain, since 2009; further notes that the European Commission has produced three Communications, a Green Paper and commissioned two Final Reports on similar subjects within the same time frame; on this basis, declares that yet more analysis on the state of the food supply chain will merely delay the pressing need for action to help farmers fight unfair trading practices;
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Notes that unfair trading practices in the food supply chain come in a number of forms, including: flat charges companies levy on suppliers as a requirement to be on a supplier list ("pay to stay"); late payments of up to 120 days, well over the 60 day limit ("pay you later"); arbitrary discounts large firms give themselves for paying early or on time; retrospective discounting to outstanding money owed a supplier; retailers forcing suppliers to use certain third party packaging producers which give the supermarkets a fee for the business they receive;
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 c (new)
Paragraph 1 c (new)
1c. Notes DG Internal Market's Final Report on the Legal Framework covering Business-to-Business Unfair Trading Practices, which showed that for the food supply chain, eight Member States have no coverage of key UTPs through public legislation, and only limited coverage in a further four Member States;
Amendment 118 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Notes that several Member States have initiated actions in national law to address the concerns of primary producers regarding the negative impact of UTPs; asks the Commission to assess these national efforts with a view to selecting best practices for application at EU level; notes in particular the Groceries Code Adjudicator in the UK as a potential model for adaptabelieves that competition law under Article 101 of TFEU, is unsuitable as a vehicle for resolving unfair trading practices due to the single-minded focus of enforcement authorities on the interest of consumers at the expense of those higher up the food supply chain, and due to exemptions from competition requirements in clause 3 as long as they lead to lower prices for consumers; believes also that antitrust law under Article 102 is also inadequate for this purpose as the technical requirements for a "dominant position" at EU level;re rarely met, although retailers may in practice hold a dominant position in a specific market situation.
Amendment 146 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Believes that framework legislation at the EU level is essential to tackle UTPs and to address their negative consequences for farmers; points out that due to the existence of cross-border agro-food enterprises and supply chains, coordination of regulatory action at EU level is vital to avoid regulatory arbitrage and loopholes which retailers can use to avoid enforcement, and to ensure a level playing field within the single market; calls for framework legislation to protect all food suppliers, wherever they are located, including in third countries; urges the Commission to consider this when assessing the SCI;
Amendment 161 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 – point a (new)
Paragraph 6 – point a (new)
(a) Therefore, calls for an EU framework directive, based on Articles 114 or 116 of TFEU on the internal market, to coordinate the establishment of enforcement bodies and mechanisms in all Member States on UTPs in the food supply chain, linked together by an EU coordination body to provide advice, set standards, cooperate on cross border cases, exchange best practice and to ensure a minimum level of protection across Member States through a common list of outlawed UTPs; procedures in enforcement bodies must enable suppliers to complain confidentially to avoid the "fear factor" and must allow enforcement bodies to start investigations on their own initiative; such public agencies should be sufficiently staffed and funded, and also coordinate with relevant enforcement bodies in third countries;
Amendment 162 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 – point b (new)
Paragraph 6 – point b (new)
(b) Such enforcement bodies should be able to impose an appropriate range of sanctions for violations of UTP regulations, including the imposition of dissuasive financial penalties of amounts sufficient to ensure that no enterprise can profit from imposing UTPs.